PRIORITIES FOR EU MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY DESIGN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

unrestrained occupants. This is because airbags protect in fewer impact types than seat belts, although no seat belt offers full protection in every impact. Also, experience elsewhere points to several potential disbenefits associated with airbags. These need to be borne in mind. Some of the protective measures provided by airbags that have been designed for adults in a normal seating position will pose a serious threat to out-of-position (OOP) adults. A few dozens of OOP occupants are being killed every year in the USA by the airbag. Usually, these people are not wearing a seat belt. With European airbags, there is currently too little information to indicate whether or not the same problems exist. Small drivers sitting close to the steering wheel are also at risk of being injured by the deploying airbag. The injury risk increases the closer the driver sits to the steering wheel. More accident research is required before an effective European performance requirement could be developed for airbags, which could address these problems. Passenger Frontal Protection Airbags Passenger airbags have been fitted in the USA for many years with an estimated reduction in fatality risk of 5%. This compares with a reduction of 15-20% for driver airbags in the US. In the EU countries passenger airbags have not been fitted to the same extent. Therefore the benefits in Europe have to date not been evaluated. As for drivers, passenger airbags, designed for adults in normal seating positions can pose a serious threat for out-of-position (OOP) adults and children. The use of child restraints on the front seat, in conjunction with an airbag, has also been shown to pose a high risk of lifethreatening injury. While such negative effects have not shown up in EU accident research, steps are needed to prevent it becoming a problem in the future. More advanced airbag systems, which respond to information about seating position seatbelt use, are required. Automatic systems to switch off the airbag, where a child restraint is present, need to be developed. The alternative of providing manual switches to turn off the airbag create a new problem if the setting of the switch is not clearly indicated to the car users each time the car is used. Recommendations • Driver airbags should be fitted universally. • Where passenger airbags are fitted, clear instructions are needed to avoid the fitment of rearward facing child restraints on the seat. • The provision of automatic detection of child restraints and out of position occupants is needed to switch off the passenger airbag. • If manual switches are provided, an effective warning about their setting needs to be incorporated. Side airbags Side airbags are becoming more common in passenger cars, a few providing protection for rear seat passengers. Currently, there is limited accident data to show the benefits from side airbags and further evaluation is needed. However, the early indications are encouraging. 34
Some concerns have been raised about the potential risk to passengers, particularly children, who may be leaning against or close to the car’s side. Currently an ISO working group is preparing a document on interactions with side airbags (ISO/TC22/SC10/WG3 N204, ISO Technical draft report 14933, Road vehicles – Test procedures for evaluating occupant interactions with deploying side impact airbags). There is potential concern regarding side airbag deployment for OOP occupants. This is primarily for those resting or positioning their head against the car side. OOP sensing may be able to protect against such problems which would, in any case, appear to be less than those associated with passenger frontal protection airbags. Head protecting airbags are now becoming more common. They help to provide protection for the head against impacts with car’s interior and particularly with structures outside the car. Their introduction, in combination with torso protecting airbags offers the possibility of providing protection against the stiff B pillar. Recommendation • With the growing number of side airbags fitted in cars, accident research is needed to identify their benefits and any associated problems. (g) Car design for the safe carriage of children Types of restraints and their effectiveness Several types of child restraint systems are in use within the EU. These include: infant carriers, child seats, booster seats and booster cushions. Infant carriers are used rearwardfacing up to the age of 9 months. Both forward and rearward-facing child seats are used for children between 6 months and 3 years old. Booster seats and cushions are used forward facing up to approximately 10 years of age. The mix of restraint systems in use varies across the EU. The effectiveness of the different restraints varies. Rearward-facing systems have been shown to reduce injuries between 90% and 95%, while forward-facing systems have been shown to have an injury reducing effect of approximately 60% (Tingvall, 1987; Volvo, 1997). The difference relates primarily to differences in protection to the head and neck in frontal impacts (GDV study). Recent research has shown that new car models generate higher acceleration levels in impacts than older models, due to the improved structural performance of the passenger compartment (Folksam, 1998). This can result in increased restraint forces on car occupants and this has led to improved restraint systems, such as airbags, seatbelt load limiters and pre-tensioners. Occupants seated in the rear of cars are less exposed to intrusion problems so that improving the intrusion resistance of passenger compartments is likely to provide less benefit to rear seat occupants, particularly children. However, any associated increase in vehicle acceleration may give rise to an increased risk of deceleration induced injury, particularly to the neck, in forward-facing restraints. Recommendations • Children in cars should be provided with suitable child restraints for their age and size. • The use of rearward facing restraints provides the best protection and should be used up to as high an age as possible. • Further research is needed to assess the effects of modern car designs to identify necessary changes for restraint design and regulatory tests. 35
Page 1 and 2: PRIORITIES FOR EU MOTOR VEHICLE SAF
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements ETSC gratefully ac
Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Road crashes cont
Page 7 and 8: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN
Page 9 and 10: d) Injury classification schemes ne
Page 11 and 12: 1. INTRODUCTION Road crashes contin
Page 13 and 14: 2. KEY CRASH INJURY PROBLEM AREAS N
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3: Collision Direction - fat
Page 17 and 18: Figure 5. Accident location - Urban
Page 19 and 20: % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Page 21 and 22: ISA system, where the speed limit c
Page 23 and 24: esponse was generally favourable, a
Page 25 and 26: provide greater compatibility, it i
Page 27 and 28: Injury criteria The EEVC has review
Page 29 and 30: Injury criteria The EEVC has review
Page 31 and 32: Recommendation • A high decelerat
Page 33: (Kamrén, 1994). In Germany, belt u
Page 37 and 38: • The fitting of ISOFIX anchorage
Page 39 and 40: Figure 11. Frequency and injury sev
Page 41 and 42: Recommendations • A new dynamic t
Page 43 and 44: elements that claim to reduce injur
Page 45 and 46: in cars is routinely lower than in
Page 47 and 48: Enhanced driver cabin structure Cur
Page 49 and 50: 3.8 TOOLS (a) Restraint systems tha
Page 51 and 52: While it would be possible to combi
Page 53 and 54: enable a further review of the Dire
Page 55 and 56: 15. Improving braking and stability
Page 57 and 58: 4. PRIORITIES FOR EU ACTION The fol
Page 59 and 60: EEVC (1994). Proposals for methods
Page 61 and 62: Munden, J.M. (1967). Relation betwe

PRIORITIES FOR EU MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY DESIGN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?